As Mike Riggs noted earlier tonight, voters have approved marijuana legalization measures in Colorado and Washington—an unprecedented change that could help lead our country away from the unjust, cruel, and disastrous policy of using force to impose politicians' pharmacological tastes on the populace. The latest numbers show Colorado's Amendment 64 winning 53 percent of the vote, while an even larger majority, 56 percent, favored Washington's Initiative 502. What happens now?

The elimination of penalties for possessing up to an ounce of marijuana (if you are 21 or older) takes effect right away in both states. But the provisions allowing commercial production and sale of cannabis for recreational use require regulations that will be written during the next year. The Washington Liquor Control Board has until December 1, 2013, to adopt regulations for marijuana growers, wholesalers, processors, and retailers. The deadline in Colorado, where cannabis businesses will be overseen by the state Department of Revenue, is July 1, 2013. Colorado's law, unlike Washington's, also allows home cultivation of up to six plants and nonprofit transfers of up to an ounce, so Colorado pot smokers will have an immediate state-legal source of marijuana.

How will the federal government react? Allow me to regurgitate some of what I said last week:

Quote:

Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle, their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

During the next few years the feds will confront the practical limits on their powers, even as they continue to defy the constititional limits (with help from the Supreme Court). The experiments on which Colorado and Washington are embarking will be instructive for the entire country, not just in terms of drug policy, where new approaches are sorely needed, but also in terms of defining the boundary between state and federal power. No one would ever mistake Barack Obama, who broke his promise to respect state laws allowing the medical use of marijuana, for a federalist. But during his second term circumstances may compel him to step back and let a few states try a little tolerance for a change.

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

I don't fully understand it either, but I know for sure it's tougher than a BAL test like a DUI. For whatever reason, it stays in your blood at reasonably high levels far after you are no longer "high" and it's difficult to define a cutoff in a way that would be an accurate predictor of impairment.

It's not going underground to any substantial degree. You don't go to your local bootlegger for beer.

Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

heh. I completely understand the science behind how THC is metabolized. What I'm saying is that since it is metabolized at a given rate (just like alcohol), and since that rate can be correlated to amounts remaining in different tissues and/or bodily fluids, then an amount should be able to be set that is considered "under the influence". I get that you can find it in fat cells a month after you use it. Bottom line is if you aren't under the influence of the THC, in a sense that it isn't impairing you, then it doesn't matter if you did it 2 days ago. Just like alcohol. don't be so dense.

Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

That may be true in some cases, but I highly doubt it would be the norm. People can brew beer in their homes too, but that's not the typical way people buy it. It's just too much of a hassle.

Today, according to the Facebook page of KING 5 news, the prosecutor of King County (home of Seattle) has announced he is dropping all misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges due to the passage of I-502.

This is after the AG said they are ready to defend the voters rights to pass this initiative against the federal government. They have already started taking applications for distributors licenses, and this law takes effect Dec. 6th.

These guys aren't ****ing around. What do you all think of Washington's proactive stance to this?

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

__________________
''Though a quarrel in the streets is a thing to be hated, the energies displayed in it are fine; the commonest man shows a grace in his quarrel.''

Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I think one reason heteros have become more tolerant of gays is their own acceptance of butt-sex as an alternative form. I never heard of the concept until about 5-10 years ago and it's mentioned continually in pop culture. Honestly I have no clue what the appeal is but apparently it exists. Usually as a solution to sexual boredom.

The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

Colorado should be wondering whether it is in peril of losing some federal tax dollars unless they repeal the amendment. Such a move by the federal government to influence state law would not be unprecedented.

UPDATE 3:03 p.m. King and Pierce County prosecutors are dismissing more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to Tuesday’s vote to decriminalize small amounts of pot.

In King County, 175 cases are being dismissed involving people 21 and older and possession of one ounce or less. I-502 makes one ounce of marijuana legal on Dec. 6, but King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decided to apply I-502 retroactively.

“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said in a statement.

The dismissed cases involved arrests in unincorporated King County, as well as the state highways and the University of Washington. About 40 of the cases had already been filed in court as criminal charges; those charges will be dismissed. Another 135 cases were pending charging decisions and will simply be returned to the arresting police agency.

Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was dismissing “about four dozen” pending cases where misdemeanor marijuana was the only offense. He said his staff was continuing to prosecute other cases where possession was secondary to a more serious charge, such as drunken driving.

“The people have spoken through this initiative,” said Lindquist. “And as a practical matter, I don’t think you could sell a simple marijuana case to a jury after this initiative passed.”

In an interview, Satterberg said his office would continue to prosecute marijuana possession above one ounce, allowing for “a buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.” His office also charges felony possession — for people with more than 40 grams — although he said his staff routinely allows those defendants to plead down to a misdemeanor.

“I think when the people voted to change the policy, they weren’t focused on when the effective date of the new policy would be. They spoke loudly and clearly that we should not treat small amounts of marijuana as an offense,” he said.
I-502 campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she was “incredibly moved” by Satterberg’s announcement, which she said showed “incredible courage.”

The decision supports a prime argument I-502 made during the campaign. A study by a group of academics found there had been 241,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession cases in Washington over the past 25 years, 67,000 of them in the past five years. “If 502 hadn’t passed, we’d see the same amount of marijuana possession cases every year,” she said. “What makes a difference is changing the law.”
Satterberg is the first prosecutor to change charging policy after I-502, but other prosecutors are also considering these cases. Tom McBride of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys said his office “just starting to work through those issues.”

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has refused to prosecute misdemeanor possession cases since he took office.

Earlier this week, the chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Spokane County, Jack Driscoll, appeared to take a more conservative position. He told the Spokesman-Review that, even after Dec. 6, the only marijuana which was legal to possess was pot sold in the state-licensed stores called for in I-502. Those stores won’t be created for at least a year.

“The only thing that is legal is selling marijuana through those stores,” Driscoll said. “That will be regulated by the state. You can’t under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn’t come from a state-issued provider. You still can’t have black-market marijuana.”

Holcomb disputed that interpretation. So did Satterberg, who called it a “very narrow reading” of the initiative. “I don’t know how you trace where (the marijuana) comes from,” he said.
Satterberg said he expected federal authorities to seek an injunction to block implementation of I-502′s state licensing scheme for marijuana retailers and growers. “I think it’s the kind of issue the U.S. Supreme Court will have a final word on,” said Satterberg, calling it an “an important state’s rights issue.”
But he does not expect a federal lawsuit to target the types of cases he is dismissing, noting that states already have widely divergent penalties for marijuana possession.